1. Summary Information
|
|
|
Country |
|
|
Company Name |
BANNARI AMMAN
SUGARS LIMITED |
Principal Name 1 |
Mr. S V Alagappan |
|
Status |
Good |
Principal Name 2 |
Mr. S V Arumugam |
|
|
|
Registration # |
18-001358 |
|
Street Address |
1212, |
||
|
Established Date |
01.12.1983 |
SIC Code |
-- |
|
Telephone# |
91-422-2302277
(10 Line) |
Business Style 1 |
Manufacturer |
|
Fax # |
91-422-2309999 /
2305599 |
Business Style 2 |
|
|
Homepage |
Product Name 1 |
White Crystal Sugar |
|
|
# of employees |
Not Available |
Product Name 2 |
Alcohol |
|
Paid up capital |
Rs.114,397,000/- |
Product Name 3 |
Granit Block and Slab |
|
Shareholders |
Total
shareholding of Promoter and Promoter Group 54.72% Total Public shareholding 45.28 % |
Banking |
Punjab
National Bank |
|
Public Limited Corp. |
Yes |
Business Period |
28 Years |
|
IPO |
Yes |
International Ins. |
- |
|
Public |
Yes |
Rating |
A
(70) |
|
Related
Company |
|||
|
Relation
|
Country
|
Company
Name |
|
|
Related
Party |
|
Annamallai
Retreading Company Private Limited |
|
|
Note |
-- |
||
2. Summary
Financial Statement
|
Balance Sheet as of |
31.03.2011 |
(Unit: Indian Rs.) |
|
|
Assets |
Liabilities |
||
|
Current Assets |
3075,255,000 |
Current Liabilities |
1545,273,000 |
|
Inventories |
5279,526,000 |
Long-term Liabilities |
5226,670,000 |
|
Fixed Assets |
7140,635,000 |
Other Liabilities |
1696,803,000 |
|
Deferred Assets |
0,000 |
Total Liabilities |
8,468,746,000 |
|
Invest& other Assets |
215,060,000 |
Retained Earnings |
7127,333,000 |
|
|
|
Net Worth |
7241,730,000 |
|
Total Assets |
15,710,476,000 |
Total Liab. & Equity |
15,710,416,000 |
|
Total Assets (Previous Year) |
12,273,826,000 |
|
|
|
P/L Statement as of |
31.03.2011 |
(Unit: Indian Rs.) |
|
|
Sales |
8238,539,000 |
Net Profit |
530,614,000 |
|
Sales(Previous yr) |
8770,399,000 |
Net Profit(Prev.yr) |
1436,333,000 |
MIRA
INFORM REPORT
|
Report Date : |
07.05.2012 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LIMITED |
|
|
|
|
Registered
Office : |
1212, |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
|
|
|
|
|
Financials (as
on) : |
31.03.2011 |
|
|
|
|
Date of
Incorporation : |
01.12.1983 |
|
|
|
|
Com. Reg. No.: |
18-001358 |
|
|
|
|
Capital
Investment / Paid-up Capital : |
Rs. 114.397 Millions |
|
|
|
|
CIN No.: [Company Identification
No.] |
L15421TZ1983PLC001358 |
|
|
|
|
TAN No.: [Tax Deduction &
Collection Account No.] |
CMBB03043F/CMBB03038A/CMBB03064F |
|
|
|
|
PAN No.: [Permanent Account No.] |
AAACB8933G |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
A Public Limited Liability company. The company’s Shares are Listed on
the Stock Exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business
: |
Manufacturer of Sugar Alcohol Bio-Compost Bio-Diesel
Granite Products and Generation and Distribution of Power. |
|
|
|
|
No. of Employees
: |
Not Available |
RATING & COMMENTS
|
MIRA’s Rating : |
A (70) |
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General unfavourable
factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for payment of
interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
Maximum Credit Limit : |
USD 28967000 |
|
|
|
|
Status : |
Good |
|
|
|
|
Payment Behaviour : |
Regular |
|
|
|
|
Litigation : |
Clear |
|
|
|
|
Comments : |
Subject is a well established and a reputed company having fine track.
There appears to be some dip in the profitability of the company in the
current year i.e. (2010-11). However, financial position of the company
appears to be sound. Trade relations are reported as fair. Business is
active. Payments are reported to be regular and as per commitments. The company can be considered good for normal business dealings at
usual trade terms and conditions. It can be regarded as a promising business partner in medium to long
run. |
NOTES :
Any query related to this report can be made
on e-mail : infodept@mirainform.com
while quoting report number, name and date.
ECGC Country Risk Classification List – September 30, 2011
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (30.06.2011) |
Current Rating (30.09.2011) |
|
|
A1 |
A1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
LOCATIONS
|
Registered
Office / Corporate Office : |
1212, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-422-2302277 (10 Line) |
|
Fax No.: |
91-422-2309999 / 2305599 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
Website : |
|
|
|
|
|
Branch Office : |
Located at ·
Chennai ·
·
|
|
|
|
|
Sugar Unit-I |
Alathukombai,
Sathyamangalam - 638 401, Erode District, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-4295-220363/
220387 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-4295-222362/
220695 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Sugar Unit- II |
Alaganchi, Nanjangud–571301,
Mysore District, Karnataka, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-8221-235042/24/45/54/55 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-8221-235014 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Sugar Unit- III |
Kunthur, Kollegal 571440, Chamrajnagar District,
Karnataka, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-8224- 261277 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-8224 -261333 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Sugar Unit- IV |
Kolundanpattu,
Thandarampattu Tk – 606 706, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamilnadu |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-4188-
248571/72/73 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-4188
-248200 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Granite Division: |
100
% EOU: |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-4295-220363/220387 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-4295-222909 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Distillery Division : |
Chinnapuliyur, Periyapuliyur- 638455, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91)-4256-236688 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-4256-236690 |
|
E-Mail : |
basddspl@vsnl.com |
|
|
|
|
Bio-Compost Unit : |
Modur, Arakkankottai - 638506, Gobichettipalayam, TK, Erode
District, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-4285-252510/ 252110 |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Bio Diesel plant : |
Alathukombai, Sathyamangalam – 638401, Erode District, |
|
Tel. No.: |
91-4295-220363, 220387 |
|
Fax No.: |
91-4295-220695 |
|
E-Mail : |
DIRECTORS
As on 31.03.2011
|
Name : |
And S V
Balasubramaniam |
|
Designation : |
Chairman |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
And
V Venkata Reddy |
|
Designation : |
Vice Chairman |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr.
B Saravanan |
|
Designation : |
Managing Director |
|
Qualification
: |
Commerce Graduate |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr. S V Alagappan |
|
Designation : |
Director |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr. S V Arumugam |
|
Designation : |
Director |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr. E P
Muthukumar |
|
Designation : |
Director |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr. A K
Perumalsamy |
|
Designation : |
Director |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr. T Gundan |
|
Designation : |
Director |
KEY EXECUTIVES
|
Name : |
Mr. C Palaniswamy |
|
Designation : |
Company Secretary |
MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS / SHAREHOLDING PATTERN
As on 31.12.2011
|
Names of Shareholders |
No. of Shares |
Total
Shareholding as a % of total No. of Shares |
|
(A) Shareholding of Promoter and Promoter Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1837535 |
16.06 |
|
|
4422741 |
38.66 |
|
|
6260276 |
54.72 |
|
Total shareholding of Promoter and Promoter Group (A) |
|
54.72 |
|
(B) Public Shareholding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
- |
|
|
264 |
- |
|
|
22392 |
0.20 |
|
|
22756 |
0.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
997826 |
8.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1166802 |
10.20 |
|
|
2053259 |
17.95 |
|
|
935781 |
8.21 |
|
|
436 |
- |
|
Director and their relatives and Friends |
106731 |
0.93 |
|
|
45000 |
0.39 |
|
Non Resident Indians |
249948 |
2.18 |
|
|
536616 |
4.69 |
|
|
50 |
- |
|
|
5156668 |
45.08 |
|
Total Public shareholding (B) |
5179424 |
45.28 |
|
Total (A)+(B) |
11439700 |
100.00 |
|
(C) Shares held by Custodians and against which Depository Receipts
have been issued |
|
|
|
(1) Promoters and Promoter Group |
- |
- |
|
(2) Public |
- |
- |
|
Sub Total |
|
|
|
Total (A)+(B)+(C) |
11439700 |
- |
BUSINESS DETAILS
|
Line of Business : |
Manufacturer of Sugar Alcohol Bio-Compost Bio-Diesel Granite
Products and Generation and Distribution of Power. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Products : |
|
GENERAL INFORMATION
|
No. of Employees : |
Not Available |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bankers : |
·
Punjab National Bank ·
Bank of ·
Canara Bank ·
The Federal Bank Limited ·
The Karur Vysya Bank Limited ·
Union Bank of ·
Indian Overseas Bank ·
State Bank of Travancore ·
State Bank of ·
State Bank of ·
Bank of ·
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Facilities : |
|
|
|
|
|
Banking
Relations : |
- |
|
|
|
|
Auditors : |
P
N Raghavendra Rao and Company Chartered Accountants |
|
|
|
|
Internal
Auditors 1 : |
Srivatsan
and Gita Chartered Accountants |
|
|
|
|
Internal
Auditors 2 : |
Bakthavachalam
and Company Chartered
Accountants |
|
|
|
|
Cost
Auditor : |
M
Nagarajan Cost Accountant |
|
|
|
|
Related Party : |
·
Annamallai
Retreading Company Private Limited ·
Madras
Sugars Limited ·
Anamallais
Automobiles Private Limited ·
Bannari
Amman Spinning Mills Limited ·
Shiva
Distilleries Limited ·
Vedanayagam
Hospital Limited ·
Shiva
Texyarn Limited |
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
As on 31.03.2011
Authorised Capital :
|
No. of Shares |
Type |
Value |
Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29000000 |
Equity Shares |
Rs.10/- each |
Rs.290.000 Millions |
|
2100000 |
Preference Shares |
Rs.100/-
each |
Rs.210.000
Millions |
|
|
Total
|
|
Rs.500.000
Millions |
Issued, Subscribed & Paid-up Capital :
|
No. of Shares |
Type |
Value |
Amount |
|
11439700 |
Equity Shares |
Rs.10/- each |
Rs. 114.397
Millions |
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCIAL DATA
[all figures are
in Rupees Millions]
ABRIDGED BALANCE
SHEET
|
SOURCES OF FUNDS |
31.03.2011 |
31.03.2010 |
31.03.2009 |
|
|
SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS |
|
|
|
|
|
1] Share Capital |
114.397 |
114.397 |
114.397 |
|
|
2] Share Application Money |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
|
3] Reserves & Surplus |
7127.333 |
6730.116 |
5427.049 |
|
|
4] (Accumulated Losses) |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
|
NETWORTH |
7241.730 |
6844.513 |
5541.446 |
|
|
LOAN FUNDS |
|
|
|
|
|
1] Secured Loans |
2599.271 |
1966.392 |
1973.918 |
|
|
2] Unsecured Loans |
2627.399 |
216.133 |
477.807 |
|
|
TOTAL BORROWING |
5226.670 |
2182.525 |
2451.725 |
|
|
DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES |
919.089 |
840.079 |
588.242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
13387.489 |
9867.117 |
8581.413 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPLICATION OF FUNDS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIXED ASSETS [Net Block] |
7140.635 |
7146.360 |
4432.517 |
|
|
Capital work-in-progress |
207.566 |
224.103 |
903.080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENT |
7.494 |
38.978 |
43.975 |
|
|
DEFERREX TAX ASSETS |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS & ADVANCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories |
5279.526
|
2665.746 |
2875.823 |
|
|
Sundry Debtors |
992.903
|
449.148 |
695.504 |
|
|
Cash & Bank Balances |
48.826
|
55.823 |
54.970 |
|
|
Other Current Assets |
197.976
|
255.705 |
279.178 |
|
|
Loans & Advances |
1835.550
|
1437.963 |
1155.466 |
|
Total
Current Assets |
8354.781
|
4864.385 |
5060.941 |
|
|
Less : CURRENT
LIABILITIES & PROVISIONS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sundry Creditors |
0.000
|
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
|
Other Current Liabilities |
1545.273
|
1687.605 |
1182.745 |
|
|
Provisions |
777.714
|
719.104 |
676.355 |
|
Total
Current Liabilities |
2322.987
|
2406.709 |
1859.100 |
|
|
Net Current Assets |
6031.794
|
2457.676 |
3201.841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
13387.489 |
9867.117 |
8581.413 |
|
PROFIT & LOSS
ACCOUNT
|
|
PARTICULARS |
31.03.2011 |
31.03.2010 |
31.03.2009 |
|
|
|
SALES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income |
8238.539 |
8770.399 |
6948.262 |
|
|
|
Other Income |
77.312 |
89.793 |
172.703 |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
8315.851 |
8860.192 |
7120.965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less |
EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raw Material Purchased |
6566.601 |
4299.538 |
3432.472 |
|
|
|
Trade Goods Purchased |
3.395 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
|
|
Manufacturing and other expenses |
2742.763 |
1971.077 |
1765.151 |
|
|
|
Excise Duty on stock |
80.492 |
(79.989) |
(40.066) |
|
|
|
Stock Adjustment |
(2568.190) |
235.749 |
207.820 |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
6825.061 |
6426.375 |
5365.377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less |
PROFIT
BEFORE INTEREST, TAX, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION |
1490.790 |
2433.817 |
1755.588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less |
FINANCIAL
EXPENSES |
221.565 |
53.034 |
95.814 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFIT
BEFORE TAX, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION |
1269.225 |
2380.783 |
1659.774 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less/ Add |
DEPRECIATION/
AMORTISATION |
708.308 |
383.406 |
340.823 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFIT BEFORE
TAX |
560.917 |
1997.377 |
1318.951 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less |
TAX |
30.303 |
561.044 |
120.674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFIT AFTER TAX
|
530.614 |
1436.333 |
1198.277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add |
PREVIOUS
YEARS’ BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD |
126.245 |
173.178 |
173.255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less |
APPROPRIATIONS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer to General Reserve |
410.000 |
1350.000 |
860.000 |
|
|
|
Dividend |
114.397 |
114.397 |
131.011 |
|
|
|
Tax on Dividend |
19.000 |
19.442 |
22.265 |
|
|
|
Provision for Diminution in Value of
Investment |
0.000 |
(0.573) |
0.478 |
|
|
|
Capital Redemption Reserve |
0.000 |
0.000 |
184.600 |
|
|
BALANCE CARRIED
TO THE B/S |
113.462 |
126.245 |
173.178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS IN
FOREIGN CURRENCY |
693.523 |
340.756 |
674.025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raw Sugar |
1472.675 |
975.439 |
-- |
|
|
|
Components and Spares Parts |
79.655 |
47.650 |
57.189 |
|
|
|
Capital Goods |
40.679 |
240.532 |
18.227 |
|
|
TOTAL IMPORTS |
1593.009 |
1263.621 |
75.416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Per
Share (Rs.) |
46.38 |
125.56 |
103.05 |
|
QUARTERLY RESULTS
|
PARTICULARS |
30.06.2011 1st
Quarter |
30.09.2011 2nd Quarter |
31.12.2011 3rd
Quarter |
|
Type |
|
|
|
|
Sales Turnover |
3473.880 |
2680.620 |
2597.630 |
|
Total Expenditure |
2931.430 |
2248.690 |
2249.230 |
|
PBIDT (Excl
OI) |
542.450 |
431.930 |
348.400 |
|
Other Income |
9.040 |
11.210 |
3.910 |
|
Operating
Profit |
551.490 |
443.140 |
352.310 |
|
Interest |
126.010 |
121.440 |
107.590 |
|
Exceptional
Items |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
PBDT |
425.480 |
321.700 |
244.720 |
|
Depreciation |
170.600 |
169.430 |
164.140 |
|
Profit
Before Tax |
254.880 |
152.270 |
80.580 |
|
Tax |
53.330 |
10.990 |
9.740 |
|
Reported PAT |
201.550 |
141.270 |
70.830 |
|
Extraordinary Items |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
Prior Period Expenses |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
Other Adjustments |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
Net Profit |
201.550 |
141.270 |
70.830 |
KEY RATIOS
|
PARTICULARS |
|
31.03.2011 |
31.03.2010 |
31.03.2009 |
|
PAT / Total Income |
(%) |
6.38
|
16.21 |
16.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Profit Margin (PBT/Sales) |
(%) |
6.80
|
22.77 |
18.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return on Total Assets (PBT/Total Assets} |
(%) |
3.62
|
16.63 |
13.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return on Investment (ROI) (PBT/Networth) |
|
0.08
|
0.29 |
0.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt Equity Ratio (Total Liability/Networth) |
|
1.04
|
0.67 |
0.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Ratio (Current Asset/Current Liability) |
|
3.60
|
2.02 |
2.72 |
LOCAL AGENCY FURTHER INFORMATION
|
Available
in Report [Yes/No] |
|
|
Year
of Establishment |
Yes |
|
Locality
of the Firm |
Yes |
|
Construction
of the firm |
Yes |
|
Premises
details |
No |
|
Type
of Business |
Yes |
|
Line
of Business |
Yes |
|
Promoters
background |
Yes |
|
No.
of Employees |
Yes |
|
Name
of Person Contacted |
No |
|
Designation
of contact person |
No |
|
Turnover
of firm for last three years |
Yes |
|
Profitability
for last three years |
Yes |
|
Reasons
for variation <> 20% |
- |
|
Estimation
for coming financial year |
Yes |
|
Capital
the business |
Yes |
|
Details
of sister concerns |
- |
|
Major
Suppliers |
No |
|
Major
Customers |
No |
|
Payment
Terms |
No |
|
Export
/ Import Details [If Applicable] |
No |
|
Market
Information |
- |
|
Litigations
that the firm / promoter involved in |
- |
|
Banking
Details |
Yes |
|
Banking
Facility Details |
Yes |
|
Conduct
of the banking account |
- |
|
Buyer
visit details |
- |
|
Financials,
if provided |
Yes |
|
Incorporation
details, if applicable |
Yes |
|
Last
accounts filed at ROC |
Yes |
|
Major
Shareholders, if applicable |
No |
Review of
Operations
Sugar Division
During the year
the sugar prices remained flat throughout the year at uneconomical levels. The cost
of inputs had increased substantially mainly due to steep increase in cane
price. The stock of sugar was almost 60% of the total production resulting in
increase of carrying cost
Co-generation of Power
The co-generation
plants had generated 409.64 million units of power and exported 291.06 million
units of power to grids compared to the generation of 245.58 million units and
export of 168.78 million units in the previous year. The increase is due to the
full year operation of co-generation plant at Unit-IV at Thiruvannamalai
District. The dues on supply of power to the Tamilnadu and Karnataka Government
grids are not settled in time and the delay has impacted the working capital
finance of the company
Distillery Division
During the year the
distillery units had produced 25.95 million BLtrs of Alcohol as against 26.80
million BLtrs in the previous year
Granite Division
In the granite
processing unit 110667 square metres of granite slabs and 13675 square metres
of tiles were produced compared to production of 111658 square metres of
granite slabs and 10722 square metres of tiles in the last year
Wind Mill
Wind Mills had
generated 15.12 million units of power and exported 13.27 million units to grid
compared to the generation of 16.77 million units and export of 15.18 million
units
Management Discussion and Analysis Report
Indian Sugar
Industry
Indian sugar Price
The Indian sugar prices did not move along with the world sugar prices
on account of Government's policies with regard to exports and releases in the
local market. Sugar prices remained flat at uneconomical levels throughout the
year.
The levy sugar price most of the time is much lower than the free sugar
price and the industry subsidizes the supply of sugar to public distribution
system. This also has an adverse impact on the performance.
Sugar Cane Price
The Government of India made a very important amendment in the sugarcane
(Control) Order by which Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) is fixed by the
Government of India after taking into consideration the cost of production of
sugarcane including the cost of transportation and elements of profits and
margins for sugarcane farmers on account of risk.
The FRP fixed by the Central Government for the season 2010 - 2011 is Rs
139.12 per quintal linked to a basic recovery of 9.5% sugar with a premium of
Rs 1.46 for every 0.1% point increase in recovery. Since FRP is fixed after
taking into consideration of all the relevant factors there must not be any
room for any other authority to increase the price already fixed. However both
the Tamilnadu and Karnataka governments had advised to pay higher price than
FRP fixed by the Central Government. FRP for 2011 - 2012 has been announced
fixing the price at Rs 145 per quintal for 9.5% recovery with a premium of Rs
1.53 for every 0.1% increase in the recovery.
The raw material cost plays a very vital role in determining the
financial performance of sugar companies. Any unreasonable increase in sugarcane
price adversely affects the profitability and in the long run it would have
impact on the payments to be made to the cane growers.
FIXED ASSETS:
·
Land
·
Buildings
·
Plant
and Machinery
·
Furniture
·
Fixtures
·
Office
and Canteen Equipments
·
Live
Stock
·
Motor
Vehicles
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 31.12.2011
|
No. |
PARTICULARS |
Three months ended 31.12.2011 (Unaudited) |
Three months ended 30.09.2011 (Unaudited) |
Year to date figure for the current period ended 31.12.2011 (Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Net Sales/ Income from operations |
3467.153 |
2676.602 |
8740.323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b) Other operating income |
6.730 |
4.014 |
11.804 |
|
2 |
Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
a) (Increase) / decrease in stock
in trade and work in progress |
(20.360) |
230.321 |
618.216 |
|
|
b) Consumption of raw materials |
2228.127 |
1374.225 |
4765.645 |
|
|
c) Purchase of traded goods |
Na |
|
|
|
|
d) Employees cost |
140.244 |
127.523 |
360.748 |
|
|
e) Depreciation |
170.598 |
169.434 |
504.170 |
|
|
f) Power and Fuel |
147.186 |
120.401 |
499.911 |
|
|
g) Other expenditure |
436.233 |
396.211 |
1184.821 |
|
|
h) Total |
3102.028 |
2418.115 |
7933.511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Profit from Operations before Other Income, Interest and
Exceptional Items(1-2) |
371.855 |
262.501 |
818.616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Other Income |
9.041 |
11.208 |
24.158 |
|
5 |
Profit before Interest and Exceptional Items (3 + 4) |
380.896 |
273.709 |
842.774 |
|
6 |
Interest |
126.007 |
121.441 |
355.042 |
|
7 |
Profit after Interest but before Exceptional Items ( 5 - 6) |
254.889 |
152.268 |
487.732 |
|
8 |
Exceptional Items |
- |
- |
- |
|
9 |
Profit/(Loss) from Ordinary Activities before Tax (7 + 8) |
254.889 |
152.268 |
487.732 |
|
10 |
Tax expenses |
53.332 |
10.994 |
74.069 |
|
11 |
Net Profit/(Loss) from Ordinary Activities after Tax ( 9- 10) |
201.557 |
141.274 |
413.663 |
|
12 |
Extraordinary Items (net of tax expenses Rs. ) |
- |
- |
- |
|
13 |
Net Profit/(Loss) for the Period (11-12) |
201.557 |
141.274 |
413.663 |
|
14 |
Paid-up Equity Share capital |
114.397 |
114.397 |
114.397 |
|
15 |
Reserves excluding Revaluation Reserves as per Balance Sheet of Previous
Accounting Year |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 |
Earning Per Share (EPS) |
|
|
|
|
|
a. Basic and diluted EPS before Extraordinary items for the
period, for the year to-date and for the previous year (Rs.) |
17.62 |
12.35 |
36.16 |
|
|
b. Basic and diluted EPS after Extraordinary items for the
period, for the year to-date and for the previous year (Rs.) |
17.62 |
12.35 |
36.16 |
|
17 |
Public Shareholding |
|
|
|
|
|
- Number of Shares |
5178424 |
5179424 |
5179424 |
|
|
- Percentage of Shareholding |
45.28 |
45.28 |
45.28 |
|
18 |
Promoters and Promoter group Shareholding: |
|
|
|
|
|
a. Pledged/Encumbered |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
|
Percentage of Shares (as a % of the total share holding of promoter
and promoter group) |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Percentage of Shares (as a % of the total share holding of the
company) |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
b. Non-encumbered |
|
|
|
|
|
- Number of Shares |
6260276 |
6260276 |
6260276 |
|
|
Percentage of Shares (as
a % of the total share holding of promoter and promoter group) |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Percentage of Shares (as a % of the total share holding of the
company) |
54.72 |
54.72 |
54.72 |
STOCK EXCHANGE FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 31.12.2011
|
|
PARTICULARS |
Three months ended 31.12.2011 (Unaudited) |
Three months ended 30.09.2011 (Unaudited) |
Year to date figure for the current period ended 31.12.2011 (Unaudited) |
|
1 |
SEGMENT REVENUE ( Net
Sales/Income from each segment) |
|
|
|
|
|
a) Sugar |
3000.529 |
2269.732 |
7334.097 |
|
|
b) Power |
579.169 |
475.457 |
1699.354 |
|
|
c) Distillery |
327.184 |
225.616 |
750.195 |
|
|
d) Unallocated |
206.457 |
194.209 |
552.351 |
|
|
Total |
4113.339 |
3165.014 |
10335.997 |
|
|
Less: Inter Segment Revenue |
346.186 |
488.412 |
1595.674 |
|
|
Net Sales/Income from Operation |
3467.153 |
2676.602 |
8740.323 |
|
2 |
SEGMENT RESULTS ( Profit before Tax and Interest from each
segment) |
|
|
|
|
|
a) Sugar |
98.791 |
6.009 |
62.321 |
|
|
b) Power |
129.346 |
130.849 |
454.792 |
|
|
c) Distillery |
116.016 |
77.180 |
236.304 |
|
|
d) Unallocated |
31.576 |
56.546 |
79.223 |
|
|
Total |
375.729 |
270.584 |
832.640 |
|
|
Less interest |
126.007 |
121.441 |
355.042 |
|
|
Add: Un-allocable income |
5.167 |
3.125 |
10.134 |
|
|
Total Profit Before Tax |
254.889 |
152.268 |
487.732 |
|
3 |
CAPITAL EMPLOYED (Segment Assets minus Segment
Liabilities) |
|
|
|
|
|
a) Sugar |
8876.586 |
8951.032 |
8876.586 |
|
|
b) Power |
1731.610 |
1808.748 |
1731.610 |
|
|
c) Distillery |
1196.474 |
1085.310 |
1196.474 |
|
|
d) Unallocated |
596.283 |
659.729 |
596.283 |
|
|
Total |
12400.953 |
12504.819 |
12400.953 |
Website details
Business Description
Subject is an India-based
company. The Company has five divisions: Sugar Division, Co-generation of
Power, Distillery Division, Granite Division and Wind Mill. During fiscal year
ended March 31, 2011 (fiscal 2011), the Company had crushed 509000 tons of
sugarcane in sugar unit I, 1185000 tons of sugarcane in sugar unit II, 350000
tons of sugarcane in sugar unit III and 541000 tons of sugarcane in sugar unit
IV. During fiscal 2011, the co-generation plants had generated 409.64 million
units of power and exported 291.06 million units of power to grids. During
fiscal 2011, the distillery units produced 25.95 million BLtrs of Alcohol.
During fiscal 2011, the Wind mills generated 15.12 million units of power and
exported 13.27 million units to grid. For the nine months ended 31 December
2010, Bannari Amman Sugars Limited's revenues decreased 12% to RS6.03B. Net
income decreased 89% to Rs.155.5 Millions. Revenues reflect a decrease in
income from company's operations. Net income also reflects an increase in
depreciation expenses, a higher other expenses, a rise in employee costs,
increased power & fuel expenses, a rise in interest expenses and a decrease
in operating profit margin.
Board of Directors
Mr. B.
Saravanan
(Managing Director, Executive Director, Chairman)
Mr.. B. Saravanan
is Managing Director, Executive Director of Subject. He served as Joint
Managing Director of the Company. He is also the Managing Director of Shiva
Distilleries Limited. His Other Directorships are Kerala Alcoholic Products
Limited, Madras Sugars Limited, Shiva Cargo Moers Limited, Shiva Distilleries
Limited, Annamallai Enterprise Private Limited, Bannari Enterprises Private
Limited, Kandiamman Enterprise Private Limited, Kumaraguru Enterprise Private
Limited, Soundaram Enterprise Private Limited, Soundaram Enterprise Private
Limited, Velmuruga Enterprises Private Limited.
Mr. V.Venkata Reddy
(Non-Executive Independent Vice Chairman of the
Board, Vice-Chairman)
Mr. V. Venkata
Reddy is Non-Executive Independent Vice Chairman of the Board of Subject. He is
associated with the Company. He has 45 years experience in sugar industry
including international assignments. He was the Managing Director of Sri
Chamundeswari Sugars Limited for more than 8 years. He was the President of
Sugar Mills Association, Karnataka during the period 2001 - 2003. His Other
Directorships are Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Limited, Shiva Hi-Tec
Infrastructure Limited, Shkia texyam Limited, Sri Kollapuri Amma Agro
Industries Private Limited, Sri Kollapuri Amma Enterprises Phvate Limited.
Mr. S. V. Alagappan
(Non-Executive Director, Director/ Board Member)
Mr. S. V.
Alagappan is Non-Executive Director of Subject. He holds B.Com. Is associated
with the company as Director since 29.9.1988. He has more than 37years of managerial
experience. He is the Managing Director of Shiva Texyarn Limited and Annamallai
Retreading Company Private Limited. His other directorships includes:
Annamallai Infrastructures Limited, Bannari Amman Enterprises Limited, Bannari
Amman Exports Limited, Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Limited, Bannariamman
Finance Limited, Bannari Amman Flour Mill Limited, Kerala Alcoholic Products
Limited, Shiva Cargo Movers Limited, Shiva Distilleries Limited, Anamallais
Agencies Private Limited, Anamallais Automobiles Private Limited, Annamallai
Enterprise Private Limited, Annamallai Estates Private Limited, AA Tyre
Retreading Company Private Limited, Bannari Amman Apparel Private Limited,
Bannari Amman Infrastructures Private Limited, Bannari Techno Park Private Limited,
Kwality Clothes Private Limited, Sakthi Murugan Transports Private Limited,
Shiva Automobiles Private Limited, Vadivelan Enterprises Private Limited,
Vedanayagam Hospital Private Limited.
Mr. S. V. Arumugam
(Non-Executive Director, Board Member)
Mr. S. V.
Arumugam, B.Sc., ACA, is Non-Executive Director of Subject. He is associated
with the company as Director since 28.11.1994. He has more than 23 years of
managerial experience. He is the Managing Director of Bannari Amman Spinning
Mills Limited and Bannari Amman Apparel Private Limited. His other
directorships includes: Annamallai Infrastructures Limited, Bannari Amman
Enterprises Limited, Bannari Amman Exports Limited, Bannariamman Finance
Limited, Bannari Amman Flour Mill Limited, Kerala Alcoholic Products Limited,
Shiva Cargo Movers Limited, Shiva Distilleries Limited, Shiva Texyarn Limited,
SIMATextile Processing Centre Limited, Confederation of Indian Textile
Industry, Anamallais Agencies Private Limited, Anamallais Automobiles Private
Limited. Annamallai Enterprise Private Limited, Annamallai Estates Private
Limited, Annamallai Retreading Company Private Limited, AATyre Retreading
Company Private Limited, Bannari Amman Infrastructures Private Limited, Bannari
Techno Park Private Limited, Kwality Clothes Private Limited, Murugan
Enterprise Private Limited, Sakthi Murugan Transports Private Limited, Senthil
Infrastructure Private Limited, Shiva Automobiles Private Limited, Vedanayagam
Hospital Private Limited.
Mr. T. Gundan
(Non-Executive Independent Director, Board Member)
Mr. T Gundan is
Non-Executive Independent Director of Subject. He is a Senior Cambridge and is
the Managing Director of Kothagiri Rob Roy Tea Estates Limited and experience
in business. He was a member of Tamilnadu State Legislative Assembly. He does
not hold any shares in the Company. Other Directorship includes Kothagiri Rob
Roy Tea Estates Limited, Glenburn Estates and Enterprises Private Limited,
Hotel Jagadeeswari Private Limited, Ootacamund Gymkhana Club.
Mr. E. P. Muthukumar
(Non-Executive Independent Director, Board Member)
Mr. E. P.
Muthukumar is Non-Executive Independent Director of Subject. He is associated
with Bannari Amman Sugars Limited as a Director since 6.12.1984. He doesn’t
have any Directorship in other public companies. He has 35 years experience in
sugarcane cultivation. He holds B.E.
Mr. A. K. Perumalsamy
(Non-Executive Independent Director, Board Member)
Mr. A. K.
Perumalsamy is Non-Executive Independent Director of Bannari Subject. He has
more than 48 years experience in sugarcane cultivation. He does not hold any
other Directorship.
Press Release
Bannari Amman Sugars
Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 22 November, 2004
Equivalent citations:
(2004) 192 CTR SC 492, JT 2004 (10) SC 500
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: A Pasayat, C
Thakker
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.
These two appeals involve identical questions and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment after noticing the factual position, so far as they are relevant. The appellants question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court which held that the withdrawal of benefits extended to the appellants as subsidy was in order. The appellants questioned legality of the G.O.Ms No. 989 dated 1.9.1988 directing discontinuance of purchase tax exemption in case of mills which exceeded the ceiling of Rs. 300 lakhs during the period of five years, and Government letter dated 28.12.1988 which made the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 989 of 1.9.1988 operative retrospectively from 1.4.1988. Initially the writ petitions were filed before the High Court, but after constitution of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') the writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal which held that on application of the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, the withdrawal of benefit was not sustainable in law. The State questioned correctness of the judgment before the High Court which, as noted above, held the G.O.Ms. and the Govt. letter to be valid, reversing the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. The judgment forms subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
2. In support of the appeals the primary stands raised by the appellants are:
1. The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were applicable to the facts of the case. There was no material to show existence of any overriding public interest to rule out application of the aforesaid doctrines there was no scope for retrospective withdrawal. In any event, before withdrawal of the benefits, no opportunity of hearing was granted. The High Court erroneously came to hold that the State Government had not filed any counter. The materials which were produced before the High Court and on the basis of which it was decided that the decision of the Government is in order were not even pleaded in the pleadings and during arguments. The appellants were taken by surprise by production of materials which were not even disclosed to the appellants. The contents of the files which were produced before the High Court and on which reliance was placed to hold against the appellants are not known to the appellants. In other words, there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Government's letter dated 28.12.1888 refers to some decision, but in the absence of any authentication as required under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1850 (in short the 'Constitution') the same is ineffective. In any event, the retrospective withdrawal of the benefit on the basis of an executive decision is impermissible.
3. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the appellants have failed to adduce any evidence or material to show that they were in any way induced by any governmental action to set up industries. In fact, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms. No. 1284 dated 24.10.1875 granted exemption from purchase tax on sugarcane in favour of sugar mills established in "co-operative and public sectors" in the form of annual subsidy equivalent to purchase tax on sugarcane. There was no scope for any mis-understanding that it applied to any private sector participation in the sphere of sugar manufacturing. The commercial productions were started in case of appellants in C.A. No. 8606/2002 i.e. Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors. on 27.1.1984 and in C.A. 8605/2002 i.e. Bannari Amman Sugars Limited. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. on 22.1.1986. The appellants only made representation to Government subsequently claiming exemption at par with the cooperative and public sector mills. As there was no inducement or assurance, the question of any promissory estoppel did not arise. So far as legitimate expectation aspect is concerned, it is too well known that the benefit extended can be withdrawn and with this knowledge if the units are set up, the principle of legitimate expectation does not apply. The High Court recorded the following findings on the factual aspects.
(1) The respondents have established their units prior to the Government orders granting the subsidy and they have no vested right to claim exemption.
(2) No inducement was made in the Government orders to establish the units.
(3) The respondents have not acted on the basis of the Government Orders for establishing the units.
(4) The grant of subsidy is a concession and the Government has got good reasons for modifying the scheme in public interest.
(5) No prejudice is caused to the respondents since the scheme was intended to make the units viable and the modified scheme provides for safeguards to that extent,
(6) The Order granting subsidy can be withdrawn in public interest. The Government has exercised their right to modify the scheme in the interest of public revenue.
4. The stand taken by the present appellants before the Tribunal and the High Court was rejected. With reference to the files produced, certain factual conclusions were arrived at, the correctness of those form the core challenge in these appeals.
5. Estoppel is a rule of equity which has gained new
dimensions in recent years. A new class of estoppel has come to be recognized
by the courts in this country as well as in
Estoppel" has been evolved by the courts, on the principles of equity, to avoid injustice. "Promissory. Estoppel" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "an estoppel which arises when there is a promise which promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of promise, and which does induce such action or forbearance, and such promise is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of promise". So far as this Court is concerned, it invoked the doctrine in Indo Afghan Agencies's case (supra) in which it was, inter alia, laid down that even though the case would not fall within the terms of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') which enacts the rule of estoppel, it would still be open to a party who had acted on a representation made by the Government to claim that the Government should be bound to carry out the promise made by it even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the State of Bihar , Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited. v. State of U.P. , Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited., Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and Anr. (1998 (2) Supreme 100).
6. In the backdrop, let us travel a little distance into the
past to understand the evolution of the doctrine of "promissory
estoppel".
7. No vested right as to tax holding is acquired by a person
who is granted concession. If any concession has been given it can be withdrawn
at any time and no time limit should be insisted upon before it was withdrawn.
The rule of promissory estoppel can be invoked only if on the basis of
representation made by the Government, the industry was established to avail
benefit of exemption. In Kasinka Trading and Anr. v. Union of
8. A person may have a 'legitimate expectation' of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in the developing law of judicial review. It is, however, not necessary to explore the doctrine in this case, it is enough merely to note that a legitimate expectation can provide a sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the court to apply for judicial review. It is generally agreed that 'legitimate expectation' gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest.
9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heart beat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
10. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary.
11. This Court's observations in G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council are kept out of lush field of administrative policy except where policy is inconsistent with the express or implied provision of a statute which creates the power to which the policy relates or where a decision made in purported exercise of power is such that a repository of the power acting reasonably and in good faith could not have made it. But there has to be a word of caution. Something overwhelming must appear before the Court will intervene. That is and ought to be a difficult onus for an applicant to discharge. The Courts are not very good at formulating or evaluating policy. Sometimes when the Courts have intervened on policy grounds the Court's view of the range of policies open under the statute or of what is unreasonable policy has not got public acceptance. On the contrary, curial views of policy have been subjected to stringent criticism.
12. As Professor Wade points out (in Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade, 6th Edition) there is ample room within the legal boundaries for radical differences of opinion in which neither side is unreasonable. The reasonableness in administrative law must, therefore, distinguish between proper course and improper abuse of power. Nor is the test Court's own standard of reasonableness as it might conceive it in a given situation. The point to note is that the thing is not unreasonable in the legal sense merely because the Court thinks it to be unwise.
13. In Hindustan Development Corporation's case (supra), it was observed that decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest where the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be applied. If it is a question of policy, even by ways of change of old policy, the Courts cannot intervene with the decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to legitimate expectation, would primarily be a question of fact.
14. As was observed in Punjab Communications Limited. v. Union of
15. As observed in Attorney General for New Southwale v. Quinn (1990 (64) Australian LJR 327) to strike the exercise of administrative power solely on the ground of avoiding the disappointment of the legitimate expectations of an individual would be to set the Courts adrift on a featureless sea of pragmatism. Moreover, the negotiation of a legitimate expectation (falling short of a legal right) is too nebulous to form a basis for invalidating the exercise of a power when its exercise otherwise accords with law. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider, but the Court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognised general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the Courts for the review of administrative action must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power in a particular case. It follows that the concept of legitimate expectation is 'not the key which unlocks the treasure of natural justice and it ought not to unlock the gates which shuts the Court out of review on the merits,' particularly, when the elements of speculation and uncertainty are inherent in that very concept. As cautioned in Attorney General for New Southwale's case the Courts should restrain themselves and respect such claims duly to the legal limitations. It is a well meant caution. Otherwise, a resourceful litigant having vested interest in contract, licences, etc. can successfully indulge in getting welfare activities mandated by directing principles thwarted to further his own interest. The caution, particularly in the changing scenario becomes all the more important.
16. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities and adopt trade policies. As noted above, the ultimate test is whether on the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision comes out unscathed.
17. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time enter into judicial verdict, the reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo
District Council and Anr. , Krishnan Kakkanth v.
Government of Kerala and Ors. and Union of
18. Article 166 of the Constitution deals with the conduct of Government business. The said provision reads as follows:
"166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State. - (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor.
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion."
Clause (1) requires that all executive action of the State
Government shall have to be taken in the name of the Governor. Further there is
no particular formula of words required for compliance with Article 166(1).
What the Court has to see is whether the substance of its requirement has been
complied with. A Constitution Bench in R. Chitralekha etc. v. State of
19. In order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and bald expressions without any supporting material to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine. The Courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the Courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be present in the mind of the Court.
20. In Shrijee Sales Coporation and Anr. v. Union of India (1897 (3) SCC 398) it was observed that once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity the principle would be applicable even in cases where a period has been indicated for operation of the promise. If there is a supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand and has the power to withdraw from representation made by it which induced persons to take certain steps which may have gone adverse to the interest of such persons on account of such withdrawal. Moreover, the Government is competent to rescind from the promise even if there is no manifest public interest involved, provided no one is put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified. Similar view was expressed in Pawan Alloys and Casting Private. Limited. Meerut etc. etc. v. P.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 3810 ) and in Sales Tax officer and Anr. v. Shree Durga Oil Mills and Anr. (1998 (1) SCC 573), it was further held that the Government could change its industrial policy if the situation so warranted and merely because the resolution was announced for a particular period, it did not mean that the government could not amend and change the policy under any circumstances. If the party claiming application of the doctrine acted on the basis of a notification it should have known that such notification was liable to be amended or rescinded at any point of time, if the government felt that it was necessary to do so in public interest.
21. In view of the factual position recorded by the High Court that at the point of time the appellants' units were set up and the commercial production started there was no assurance or promise. The doctrine of promissory estoppel had no application to the facts of the case at that stage. We find no substance in the plea that before a policy decision is taken to amend or alter the promise indicated in any particular notification, the beneficiary was to be granted an opportunity of hearing. Such a plea is clearly unsustainable. While taking policy decision, the government is not required to hear the persons who have been granted the benefit which is sought to be withdrawn.
22. The question of legitimate expectation arises according to the appellants after the benefits were granted by the concerned G.O.Ms. At this juncture we would like to take note of certain factual positions highlighted by the appellants which are practically undisputed by the respondents. Contrary to what the High Court has stated, it appears from record that counter affidavits were filed. The reasons which have weighed with the High Court to uphold the action of the State were not pleaded before the High Court specifically, and the High Court cull out those from the files which were produced before it. Though the appellants were not entitled to any opportunity of hearing before alteration of the benefits flowing from the notifications or withdrawal of any benefit, yet when the State has not taken any specific stand justifying the withdrawal and the High Court referred to the files to put its seal of proof, notwithstanding non-requirement for granting any opportunity before the withdrawal, principles of natural justice certainly were applicable, since the High Court with reference to the files recorded findings on the basis thereof. As noted above no specific grounds or reasons were indicated to justify the withdrawal in the affidavits filed before the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be. As the correctness of factual basis justifying withdrawal is in issue, fair play certainly warranted grant of opportunity to the appellants to present its side of the picture.
23. Further, a definite plea was taken that there was no scope for retrospective withdrawal of benefit by an executive order. The High Court has not dealt with the issue. The same also needs to be examined.
24. Above being the position, decision of the High Court by placing reliance on the files to hold that the withdrawal was justified, is not tenable in law and in the fitness of things, the High Court should hear the matter afresh and take a decision on those two issues. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on those issues on the facts of the present case.
25. It is to be noted that no privilege was claimed from production of the file as the files were produced before the High Court and in fact the High Court referred to the materials on the files to affirm State's action.
26. We direct that the State Government, if it so chooses, shall file its further counter-affidavits before the High Court within six weeks from today indicating the reasons which warranted the withdrawal of the benefits extended. The plea of the appellants regarding legitimate expectation shall be considered by the High Court in the light of materials to be placed by the respondents by affidavits as directed above. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the factual aspects except indicating the principles underlying legitimate expectation. Another point which was specifically raised before the High Court but has not been dealt by it is the legality of the action in directing retrospective withdrawal of the benefit by a letter of the Government. Whether the same is permissible in law has to be decided by the High Court.
27. To the aforesaid limited extent, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
28. The appeals are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
Next elections to
be Siddu's swan song
03 September 2011
Senior Congress leader and
former Karnataka deputy chief minister Siddaramaiah sprang a surprise on Friday
by stating that the next elections will be "his last attempt to enter the
Karnataka Assembly".
In an informal chat with
the media here on Friday, the fiery Opposition leader said that fighting
elections was becoming "cost-prohibitive".
He added that when he
contested the Lok Sabha polls in 1991 he spent a few lakhs while campaigning,
whereas a candidate contesting the Corporation elections today needs to spend
at least Rs.40.000 – 50.000 Millions.
Stating that age deters his
continuance in the political arena, Siddaramaiah, who has continuously
represented the state assembly since 1983 except for once, however, said:
"If at all I were to contest the Lok Sabha elections it would be from
Koppal, from where I had lost narrowly in the 1991 elections." He added
that the party was would finalise its candidates for the September 26 Koppal byelections
in a day or two and would campaign extensively.
"The corrupt BJP and
its failure to provide good governance will be our electoral plank," he
said.
Siddaramaiah reiterated his
demand to convene a special session of the state Assembly to discuss various
issues facing the state, including the submission of the Lokayukta report on
illegal mining and floods in
"91 people have died
and property worth Rs.1100.000 Millions was lost in the rain fury.
What better reason does the
CM have for convening the session?" he questioned.
He added that the Congress
will take part in the special session.
SUGARCANE MSP: DVS GETS
MISSIVE
In a letter addressed to
the CM which was released to the media here on Friday, Siddaramaiah said that
the Opposition parties need to be taken into confidence while holding meetings
with sugarcane growers on fixing the MSP.
The Opposition leader
opined that the state government's recent decision to fix the MSP at Rs.2,000
per tonne for the state-owned Mysugar company was not judicious.
"A majority of sugar
factories make enormous profits from the sale of byproducts of sugarcane,
including molasses and power generation, hence, the farmers' demand of seeking
higher prices for their crop is genuine," he stated in the letter.
He called on the government
to implement a similar policy for farmers supplying sugarcane to Bannari Amman
Sugars in Nanjanagud taluk.
"The Factory has not
fixed prices for sugarcane supplied to be supplied by farmers for the last
three years," he said.
CMT REPORT (Corruption, Money Laundering & Terrorism]
The Public Notice information has been collected from various sources
including but not limited to: The Courts,
1] INFORMATION ON
DESIGNATED PARTY
No records exist designating subject or any of its beneficial owners,
controlling shareholders or senior officers as terrorist or terrorist
organization or whom notice had been received that all financial transactions
involving their assets have been blocked or convicted, found guilty or against
whom a judgement or order had been entered in a proceedings for violating
money-laundering, anti-corruption or bribery or international economic or
anti-terrorism sanction laws or whose assets were seized, blocked, frozen or ordered
forfeited for violation of money laundering or international anti-terrorism
laws.
2] Court Declaration :
No records exist to suggest that subject is
or was the subject of any formal or informal allegations, prosecutions or other
official proceeding for making any prohibited payments or other improper
payments to government officials for engaging in prohibited transactions or
with designated parties.
3] Asset Declaration :
No records exist to suggest that the property or assets of the subject are
derived from criminal conduct or a prohibited transaction.
4] Record on Financial
Crime :
Charges or conviction
registered against subject: None
5] Records on Violation of
Anti-Corruption Laws :
Charges or
investigation registered against subject: None
6] Records on Int’l
Anti-Money Laundering Laws/Standards :
Charges or
investigation registered against subject: None
7] Criminal Records
No
available information exist that suggest that subject or any of its principals
have been formally charged or convicted by a competent governmental authority
for any financial crime or under any formal investigation by a competent
government authority for any violation of anti-corruption laws or international
anti-money laundering laws or standard.
8] Affiliation with
Government :
No record
exists to suggest that any director or indirect owners, controlling
shareholders, director, officer or employee of the company is a government
official or a family member or close business associate of a Government
official.
9] Compensation Package :
Our market
survey revealed that the amount of compensation sought by the subject is fair
and reasonable and comparable to compensation paid to others for similar
services.
10] Press Report :
No press reports / filings exists on
the subject.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MIRA INFORM as part of its Due Diligence do provide comments on
Corporate Governance to identify management and governance. These factors often
have been predictive and in some cases have created vulnerabilities to credit
deterioration.
Our Governance Assessment focuses principally on the interactions
between a company’s management, its Board of Directors, Shareholders and other
financial stakeholders.
CONTRAVENTION
Subject is not known to have contravened any existing local laws,
regulations or policies that prohibit, restrict or otherwise affect the terms
and conditions that could be included in the agreement with the subject.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
|
Currency |
Unit
|
Indian Rupees |
|
US Dollar |
1 |
Rs.53.72 |
|
|
1 |
Rs.86.98 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.70.65 |
INFORMATION DETAILS
|
Report Prepared
by : |
BYI |
SCORE & RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
SCORE FACTORS |
RANGE |
POINTS |
|
HISTORY |
1~10 |
7 |
|
PAID-UP CAPITAL |
1~10 |
7 |
|
OPERATING SCALE |
1~10 |
8 |
|
FINANCIAL CONDITION |
|
|
|
--BUSINESS SCALE |
1~10 |
8 |
|
--PROFITABILIRY |
1~10 |
7 |
|
--LIQUIDITY |
1~10 |
8 |
|
--LEVERAGE |
1~10 |
8 |
|
--RESERVES |
1~10 |
9 |
|
--CREDIT LINES |
1~10 |
8 |
|
--MARGINS |
-5~5 |
- |
|
DEMERIT POINTS |
|
|
|
--BANK CHARGES |
YES/NO |
YES |
|
--LITIGATION |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--OTHER ADVERSE INFORMATION |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
MERIT POINTS |
|
|
|
--SOLE DISTRIBUTORSHIP |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--EXPORT ACTIVITIES |
YES/NO |
YES |
|
--AFFILIATION |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--LISTED |
YES/NO |
YES |
|
--OTHER MERIT FACTORS |
YES/NO |
YES |
|
TOTAL |
|
70 |
This score serves as a reference to assess SC’s credit risk and
to set the amount of credit to be extended. It is calculated from a composite
of weighted scores obtained from each of the major sections of this report. The
assessed factors and their relative weights (as indicated through %) are as
follows:
Financial
condition (40%) Ownership
background (20%) Payment
record (10%)
Credit history
(10%) Market trend
(10%) Operational
size (10%)
RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
>86 |
Aaa |
Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest
capability for timely payment of interest and principal sums |
Unlimited |
|
71-85 |
Aa |
Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit
transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest
and principal sums |
Large |
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General
unfavourable factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for
payment of interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively below
average. |
Small |
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with
full security |
|
<10 |
C |
Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised |
Credit not
recommended |
|
- |
NB |
New Business |
- |
This report is issued at your request without any
risk and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL)
or its officials.